\> , o " • 




,v 






ft 



° 4? 









vOv 



Ov 



^rF 



V- **. ^ 









NATIONAL POLITICS 



A3- 



h 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. D. BARCLAY, OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 6,- 1856. 



The House being in fne Committee of the Whole en the 
-*Sate of the Union — 
Mr. BARCLAY said: 

Mr. Chairman-; Our country has scarcely passed 
the threshold of her destiny. She has but fairly 
■entered upon that great mission — the dissemina- 
tion throughout Christendom of the principles of 
civil, political, and religious liberty — the disin- 
thrallment of Rations. This she is not to accom- 
plish by the conquests of her armies and navies; 
but by the more peaceful one of the liberality of 
her laws and institutions — by the noble example 
of a people with, in some respects, antagonistic 
local interests — inhabiting a country vast in ex- 
tent, of almost every variety of climate and pro- 
ductions — establishing, administering, and sus- 
taining their own institutions through a very 
simple piece of machinery — the ballot-box- The 
-only hope of ultimate success is the Union — not a 
Union indivisible, for that would be centraliza- 
tion — but a Union just, fraternal, perpetual. It 
is by such a Union only our true greatness will 
be achieved. Hence integrity to the immeasur- 
able interests committed to us calls upon each 
State^and section of this country to abide by, and 
in good faith observe, all the compromises and 
requirements of the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. Without such observance we 
are cast out upon the wild ocean of discord, and 
left to drift at the mercy of the winds and waves 
of faction and fanaticism. 

At more than one period in the history of our 
country have the calmest minds had misgivings 
of the success of " our experiment. " More than 
once have the patriotic had cause to tremble for 
its safety. But, heretofore, as successive dangers 
arose, successively have they been met and dis- 
armed of their power by the wisdom of the Gov- 
ernment, and by the virtue, intelligence, and pa- 
triotism of the people. Sir, shall this continue ? 
Many think it will. I earnestly hope it may. 
But it may be well to remember that assault 
after assault, and shock after shock, the famous 
Makkoff withstood— yet it fell. I have seen the 



stately pine, towering up to the heavens in the 
pride of its beauty, defy the fiercest mountain 
storms; and I have seen that same tree, stripped 
of its luxuriant foliage, standing a dead and with- 
ered trunk. What the storm failed to do the in- 
sidious worm accomplished. 

This magnificent Capitol is able to withstand 
the most tumultuous warring of the elements; but 
once undermine its foundations, and its very 
strength would accelerate its fall. Repeated at- 
tacks upon the constitutional rights of the States — 
insidious attempts to demoralize the public mind 
— and the constant efforts to create animosities be- 
tween the States, and alienate the people of one 
section of the Union from those of the other — are 
equally dangerous and destructive. 

What, sir, are the signs of the times? Is it 
impossible that those dark scenes of desolation, 
which were witnessed in Prance under the House 
of Valois, in England under Charles I., and in 
Italy for successive centuries, may be reenacted 
here? Is danger diminished by closing our eyes 
to its approach? Is it lessened by denying its 
existence ? Are the combustible materials which 
are being scattered about for no purpose? Will 
the unceasing exertions made to inflame the 
public mind be of no avail ? Can we — ought we 
to be indifferent to the future of our country, 
when we see that cloud, which rose in the cast 
yet spreading over the heavens, and which , when 
no larger than a " man's hand," shook the very 
pillars of our Republic? Are we to delude ou»- 
selves with the siren-song of" no danger," when 
we see another and a younger brother makin 
appearance in the same quarter mitre ominous 
and blacker than the first? What are them 
clouds — these dangers which menace the Repub- 
lic? The one is Abolitionism, the other is Amer- 
icanism. The first, under the garb of humanity, 
would destroy the fair fabric of our Union;: the 
other, under the mask of patriotism, would re- 
kindle the fire of persecution, and carry us bacjj 
to the confines of heathenism. 

The Abolitionists contend for the immediate — 
the utter destruction of slavery in the States 



. 






One portion of them declare slavery to be illegal, 
unconstitutional, and demand the interposition 
of the General Government to compel emancipa- 
tion. They say: 

" 1. That slaveholding is illegal in such a sense, that the 
fundamental principles of civil Jaw and jurisprudence re- 
quire all courts of justice to treat it as illegal in all their 
judicial decisions. 

"2. That slavery in the United States and Territories is 
vnconstit utional. 

»< 3. That the Federal Government, in its several depart- 
ments, has constitutional power to prohibit and suppress 
slaveholding in all the States and Territories ; and that the 
people of the United States ought to exercise the right of 
suffrage in the election of a Federal Administration to this 
end." 

Another class of them admit that slavery is 
constitutionally right. The Anti-Slavery Society, 
through their executive committee, say: 

" 1. We deem the constitutionality and legality of slavery 
as generally understood, and the exclusive jurisdiction of 
the slave States over it within their limits, to be justly re- 
garded by the whole nation as self-evident and axiomatic 
facts — as much so as the existence of slavery, or of the 
Constitution itself." 

But they insist that it is morally wrong. Hence 
they conclude that the Constitution of the United 
States, recognizing a moral evil, is only a " com- 
pact with the devil and a league with hell," and 
as such ought to be subverted. They ask for no 
power under the Constitution; they vote for no 
man who will support it. Revolution is their 
principle; and they are counseled " to vote against 
all constitutional parties," to " block the wheels 
of Government, and thus compel revolution ," And 
for what? to eradicate an institution which they 
themselves confess to be legal and constitutional — 
an institution with which they have nothing to 
do, no responsibility to bear; they would plunge 
our land into the horrors of civil war! For a 
doubtful good they would destroy that building 
whose foundations were laid in the counsels of j 
the greatest statesmen and most illustrious pa- 
triots; a building, which, for the magnificence of 
its design or the beauty of its proportions, has 
never yet been equaled; a noble bulwark of 
national freedom, of security of life and property ! 
It were difficult, indeed, to conceive of greater 
infatuation! They say: 

" We reiterate our former declaration, that the object of 
this society is not merely to make 'liberty national, and 
slavery sectional'— nor to prevent the acquisition of Cuba 
— nor to restore the Missouri compromise — nor to repeal the 
fugitive slave bill — nor to make Kansas a free State— nor to 
resist the admission of any new slave State into the Union 
— nor to terminate slavery in the District of Columbia and 
in the national Territories— but it is, primarily, comprehens- 
ively, and uncompromisingly, to effect the immediate, 
total, and eternal overthrow of slavery, Wherever it exists 
on American soil, and to expose anil confront whatever 
party or sect seeks to purchase peace or success at the 
expense of human liberty. Living or dying, our motto is, 
' No Union with slaveholders, religiously or polit- 
ically !' " 

"No union with slaveholders, religiously or 
politically!" Why, sir, why is such ground 
assumed ? If slavery be an evil, does the wrong 
rest upon them? Should we, to liberate the 
.slave, destroy the country ? Would involving our 
land in bloody strife benefit the condition of the 
slave ? Can the Abolitionists thus benefit the slave ? 
Have not all their efforts had a contrary effect? 
I do not doubt their imprudent and unjustifiable 
conduct has not only riveted more firmly the 
chains of the slave, but has retarded his emanci- 
pation for at least half a century. This party 



cannot fail to see such has been the effect. Then? 
may I not ask, in the words of a distinguished 
Senator, " What are the motives of this constant 
and unrelenting warfare which is waged by some 
of the people of the North against the rights of 
the South ?" Is it to gratify a foreign and rival 
Power, which has followed us with the eye of 
jealousy since the day of our independence, and 
would make us subservient to her will and dicta- 
tion ? There must be some reason with the 
leaders of this fanatical crusade, which are kept 
hidden from the body of their deluded followers. 
Is it possible that Garrison and Parker and May 
and Phillips and Greeley, and a host of others y 
are the hirelings of that Power, to carry out the 
system which it inaugurated here more than forty 
years ago ? 

Great Britain has always acted upon the motto, 
so far as our country is concerned: " Dissensione 
nulla salus conspicitar." Her aim has uniformly 
been to foment dissensions among the States of 
the Union. In 1809, her Governor General of 
Canada sent John Henry to the malcontents of 
the Eastern States, to induce them to exert their 
" influence to bring about a separation of the 
General Union," and to ascertain " how far, in 
such an event, they would look to England for 
assistance." Mr. Henry, in his letter to Sir 
James H. Craig, Governor General, under date 
of March 13, 1809, says: 

" To bring about a separation of the States, under dis- 
tinct and independent governments, is an affair of more 
uncertainty, and, however desirable, cannot be effected but 
by a series of acts and long continued policy, tending to 
irritate the southern and conciliate the northern people." 
" This, I am aware, is an object of much interest in Great 
Britain, and would forever secure the integrity of his 
Majesty's possessions on the Continent, and make the two 
Governments, or whatever number the present Confederacy 
might form into, as useful and as much subject to the in- 
fluence of Great Britain as her colonies can be rendered." 
" It should, therefore, be the peculiar care of Great Britain 
to foster dissensions between the North and the South." 

That every section of the Union might be made 
subservient to the interests of England ! How 
well has that Government been represented here ! 
How incessant has been the effort to " foster dis- 
sensions between the North and the South." 
And this " to bring about a separation of the 
States." And " Massachusetts," according to 
Mr. Henry, " is to give tone to the neighboring 
States." How well has she performed her part 
of this infamous proceeding ! Hence her " higher 
law" doctrines, her abolition and anti-slavery 
societies, and their incendiary publications ; hence 
her caricatures of the South, its people and 
institutions; the above denunciation and vilifica- 
tion of the slaveholder, he held up as destitute of 
all humanity — a demon in human form. To 
stimulate popular prejudice, high-wrought fiction 
has been brought into requisition, and sent forth 
on the wings of the wind, particular cases held 
up as the general rule, the slavedealer made the 
type of the slaveholder. Every expedient has 
been, resorted to, which either fanaticism or 
malice could invent, to excite the most unchris- 
tian and hostile feelings between brethren of a 
common country. Even the sacred desk has 
been prostituted to foment discord, to excite ran- 
cor, and intensify hate. Under this system al- . 
ready have Christian churches been rent asunder, 
our laws set at defiance, and our glorious Confed- 
eracy brought to the verge of disunion; and all 



this under pretended sympathy for the slave. 
So far as the leaders of this movement are con- 
cerned, I do not doubt that British gold has a 
more powerful influence than sympathy, pre- 
tended or real. 

Sir, we have a noble inheritance, more noble than 
evef fell to the lot of a nation. Shall it be thus 
wantonly jeopardized ? Even now we are on the 
point of its total loss. The schemes of British 
power have been too successful. A little further 
progress in folly and madness, and we shall be 
undone. A portion of our people have, by rapid 
strides, approached the banks of the Rubicon: 
shall they plunge in and ford the stream? or will 
they, struck with a sense of error and danger, 
make a retrograde movement, and regain the point 
whence they started ? Beyond the stream lies a 
dreary desert, where anarchy and civil war hold 
their terrific reign, with all their long train of 
horrors, and where the devious paths lead to 
ruthless despotism. Once unhinge a Govern- 
ment — once let loose mankind from the restraints 
of the law and Constitution, and the human mind 
cannot readily calculate the result. The lessons 
taught us by the French when under Marat, 
Danton, Couthon, and Robespierre, should be 
attended to by those who are lending their aid to 
tear down the pillars of our Government. 

The Republicans arc somewhat more conserv- 
ative. So far as slavery in the States is concerned, 
they agree with the doctrines of 'the Democratic 
party. That new party, in their convention held 
at Pittsburg on the22dand 23d of February last, 
unanimously adopted and published to the coun- 
try an address. In that address they declare the 
very doctrine which is the groundwork in the 
President's argument on the slavery question in 
his last annual message. He says: 

"Hence tlie General Government, as well by, the enumer- 
ated powers granted to it, as by those not enumerated, and 
therefore refused to it, was forbidden to touch this matter 
(slavery) in the sense of attack or offense : it was placed 
under the genera! safeguard of the Union, in the sense of 
defense against either invasion or domestic violence, like 
all otlierlocal interests of the several States." 

The Republican Convention, in the address 
referred to, speaking of the slavery interest, say: 

" We acknowledge that it is large and powerful — that in 
the States where it exists it is entitled, under the Consti- 
tution, like all other local interests, to the immunity from 
the interference of the General Government, and that it 
must necessarily exercise, through its representatives, a 
considerable share of political power." 

This commits them fully to the constitutionality 
of the fugitive slave law, for, if slavery, "like 
all local interests," is entitled "to immunity from 
the interference of the General Government," 
then, " like all other local interests," is it entitled 
to protection under the Constitution in the States 
in which it exists. 

But, eir, upon the great doctrine of the right 
of the people to govern themselves, they are not 
so sound. In the platform, which they adopted 
at the recent convention in Philadelphia, I find 
that they " deny the authority of Congress, of 
a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or 
association of individuals, to give legal existence 
to slavery in any Territory of the United States, 
while the present Constitution shall be main- 
tained." Slavery is a mere local institution, 
depending for its very existence upon municipal 
law. The people of a Territory have the inher- 



ent right to establish such laws and institutions 
as may seem to them proper. This they may 
effect by popular conventions, or by delegates 
elected to represent them. This power, being 
inherent, no act of Congress can deprive them 
of it, nor has Congress any constitutional right 
to prescribe the manner how this power shall be 
exercised, or the time when it shall be exercised, 
any more than to limit its exercise. This is the 
true doctrine of popular sovereignty, and must 
ultimately prevail. Why, I should like to know- 
why are not the citizens of a Territory just as 
competent to legislate for themselves on all sub- 
jects as those of a State ? I believe they are. The 
Republican party deny the right of the people in 
a Territory " to give legal existence" to slavery 
there. Every southern man in this House, 1 
believe, denies the right of the people in a Ter- 
ritory to prevent the existence of slavery there. 
The whole South joins hands with the Repub- 
licans in denying to the people of a Territory, 
while in their territorial capacity, any power over 
the subject of slavery. They both unite in re- 
pudiating the great doctrine of popular sover- 
eignty. Both equally condemn it; and yet both 
grant that the people have the right to legislate 
on all other subjects. Why, then, not on this? 
If they possess the right to legislate on any sub- 
ject, they have equally the power to determine 
all questions which concern their municipality. 

Let the South abandon its bold, dangerous, and 
untenable ground, that the Constitution carries 
slavery into the Territories; and let the North 
repudiate the equally unconstitutional doctrine, 
that Congress may prohibit slavery there, and 
leave this, as you leave other questions, to the 
people of the Territories, to whom it properly 
belongs, to determine in their own way, at 
their own time, and in such a manner as their 
circumstances may demand. Then will sectional 
discord cease. Then will be restored those 
peaceful fraternal relations which ought never to 
have been interrupted, or even only disturbed, 
among Americans, the descendants of those glo- 
rious heroes who shed their blood — who died for 
the American Uhion ! Then will the substantial 
interest of the country, arts and science, univers- 
ities and popular schools, agriculture, com- 
merce, manufactures, and great improvements, 
receive due consideration. Then, too, will the 
Chief Executive, instead of bringing the whole 
influence and power of the Government, as the 
present Chief Magistrate has done, to crush the 
popular will in the Territories, and force upon 
the people obnoxious institutions, proted (hem 
in their rights, and deal out even-handed justice. 

But, sir, I will guard my words. 1 would not 
degrade the Administration of my country; but 
this Administration has done more than all pre- 
vious Administrations combined have done, to 
demoralize the people, to create sectional hostil- 
ities, and to centralize power. Yet, by some, the 
test of Democracy in this House is to declare the 
President infallible — that he has committed no 
blunders — that he can commit none, go far as the 
slavery question is concerned, [f this is to be 
viewed in the light of the maxim, that the King 
can do no wrong, (nor the Queen either,) and 
if it be a mere political fiction, then I have no ob- 
jection to say so. It may do to say so as a fiction, 
"with the distinct understanding that it is only 



such. Because I cannot indorse all the acts of 
this Administration as just, noble, and exalted— 
because I will not follow the unwise example of 
self-constituted leaders, and thus betray the con- 
fidence of my constituents, some gentlemen of 
this House, with more assurance than prudence, 
have undertaken a task without an adequate con- ij 
ception of its difficulties. They have undertaken 
to excommunicate me from the Democratic party! f j 
I refer to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. I 
Letcher,] and the gentleman from Alabama,* I 
[Mr. Houston.] ' If belief in the infallibility of 
the President be the test of Democracy, then 
they are Democrats. But, as for myself, if I had 
ever entertained so absurd an idea, it would have 
been completely dispelled the moment when the 
Administration interfered with the custom-house II 
appointments in New York, and removed Judge J 
Bronson. Since then, every succeeding day has | 
only riveted more firmly in my mind the convic- | 
tion, that the President is " like clay in the hands 
of the potter," molded into form by those who 
would use him. Therefore, I repudiate any such I 
test, and would suggest what appears to me the ] 
only proper one, that is, adherence to the prin- 
ciples of the party, and faithfulness to its organ- 
ization. By this rule I judge, and by it I am 
willing to be judged. I shall now inquire into 
the status of each of these gentlemen, to ascer- 
tain by what claim either assumes the censorship. 
These gentlemen were both present at the Demo- 
cratic caucus held this session, and participated 
in its proceedings, and voted for the following 
resolution: 

" Resolved, That the Democratic members of the House 
of Representatives, though in a temporary minority in this 
body, deem this a lit occasion to tender to their fellow-eili- 
zens of the whole Union their heartfelt congratulations on 
the triumph, in the recent elections in several of the north- 
ern, eastern, and western, as well as southern States, of 
the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the doc- 
tfines of civil and religious liberty, which have been so 
violently assailed by a secret political Order known as the 
Know Nothing r/arty ; and, though in a minority, we hold 
it to be our highest duty to preserve our organization, and 
continue our efforts in the maintenance and defense of those 
principles, and the constitutional rights of every section 
and every class of citizens against their opponents of every 
description, whether the so-called Republicans, Know 
Nothings, or Fusionists ; and to this end we look with con- 
fidence to the support and approbation of all good and true 
men— friends of the Constitution and the Union throughout 
the country." 

On the 31st of January, the following resolu- 
tion was offered by the gentleman from Georgia, 
[Mr. Trippe,] an American: 

"Resolved, That the Hon. William Smith, of Virginia, 
be, and he is hereby, declared Speaker of the House of 
Representatives for the Thirty-Fourth Congress." 

On the 1st of February, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Jones] submitted to the House 
the following: 

"Resolved, That Mordecai Oliver, a Representative 
from Missouri, be, and hereby is, chosen Speaker of the 
House of Representatives." 

The same day the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Cobb] offered the "o/it'C branch," which 
was: 

"Resolved, That the Hon. William Aiken, a Represent- 
ative from South Carolina, be, and he is hereby, chosen 
Speaker of the House of Representatives." 

On each of the above the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia [Mr. Letcher] and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Houstom] voted. Both their 
names are recorded for the former of these reso- 



lutions, and against a motion to lay the two lat- 
ter on the table. And this was done while the 
Democratic candidate was yet in the field. Three 
times did these gentlemen deliberately desert the 
Democratic nominee, and voted for two persons 
who were not members of the Democratic party, 
and for one who, though a Democrat, opposed 
the election of Governor Wise. I hold, sir, that 
no man, who went into caucus, and assisted to 
make a nomination, could consistently vote for 
any other person but the nominee. No matter 
whether the person so voted for be a Democrat 
or not, if introduced without the authority of the 
party, any one voting for him, when a regularly- 
nominated candidate is before the House, vio- 
lates the usages of the party. Thus both these 
gentlemen stand convicted. Not only so, but 
they voted for the gentleman from South Caro- 
lina [Mr. Aiken] for Speaker, after there was 
evidence to satisfy any reasonable man that he 
had given pledges which were satisfactory to the 
American party. To verify this, I will read from 
the Congressional Globe, pages 337 and 338 : 
" Pending the call of the roll, 

" Mr. Barclay (when his name was called) said : I wish> 
the indulgence of the House a moment before I cast my 
vote. 

"The Clerk. If there is no objection, the gentleman 
will proceed. 
" There was no objection. 

" Mr. Barclay. I wish to say to the House, that during 
this protracted session my votes are on the record. They 
stand there, whether they may condemn me or otherwise. 
I have had no reason to change my views upon the policy 
which agitates the country. I have been averse, as is well 
known to this House, to anything which looked like a col- 
lusion with Know Nothingism— 1 care not whether it come 
from the North or South ; I say I have been averse to any- 
thing like that, I have, for the three ballots this morning, 
thrown my vote away ; and, as I yesterday voted against 
the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Aiken,! 
the Democratic candidate being in the field, and as he has 
now formally withdrawn. I now desire to know one or two 
things before I cast my vote upon this, the most important 
ballot of the session, t should like to know whether the gen- 
tleman from South Carolina stands upon the resolution 
passed by the Democratic caucus on the first day of Decem- 
ber last, in this Hall ? I want to know whether he indorses 
that resolution ? [Cries of ' I object to discussion ; ' ' Too 
late. 'J I want an answer to that question before I cast my 
vote. 

'• Mr. Rust. I call the gentleman to order. The ques- 
tion comes from a wrong quarter. 

"Mr. Barclay. I am in order. I am upon the floor ■ 
and before I cast my vote I desire to know upon what 
platform the gentleman from South Carolina stands, and I 
ask him to answer my question. I also ask him whether 
he has not addressed a letter to the Hon. Humphrey Mar- 
shall, of Kentucky? and whether he has made any 
pledges satisfactory to the southern wing of the National 
American party? 

" Mr. Boyce. I.object to any questions being asked. 
" Mr. Barclay. I ask the gentleman what his position 
is ? I ask him if he has not written such a letter? 

" Mr. Aiken. I am not a candidate for the speakership, 
If my friends think proper to place me in that position, I 
shall serve them to the best of my ability. 

" Mr. Barclay. I shall then withhold my vole for the 
present." 

In addition to this, I will read a portion of the 
remarks made by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
[Mr. A. K. Marshall,] when called to vote 
upon the final ballot: 

" But, gentlemen, my friends, we haveTiot yet finished our 
course. We have yet a duty to perform. The battle in which 
we have, till now been engaged has been a party fight. 
We have been contending for party existence -for party 
supremacy. We have demanded from our Democratic 
friends a recognition of our existence, our respectability, 
our patriotism ; and an acknowledgment upon their part 
that they did us injustice in the opinion they expressed by 
the resolution passed in their first caucus, and the dectara 



tion made in regard to us in that resolution. We have 
fought a good fight for our party ; and we have done more 
— we have conquered for them. The Democracy have no 
candidate for the office of Speaker before us now. Is there 
a nominee of that party here ? Is there a Democratic plat- 
form now presented which bears on its face an offense and 
indignity to the American party ? No, sir ; neither is before 
this body now. They have lost sight of both, and why 
should we remember them longer." 

In this connection I will also read the pledges 

fiven by the gentleman from South Carolina 
Mr. Aiken] to the gentleman from Kentucky, 
[Mr. A. K. Marshall,] as published in the 
American Democrat, under date of Baltimore, 
February 15, 1856, together with a portion of 
editorial remarks on the subject: 

" On the morning that the vote under the plurality rule 
was to be taken, when Mr. Aiken began to be spoken of, 
the Hon. Alexander Keith Marshall, of Kentucky, a 
staunch American and conservative, being reluctant to 
vote for Mr. Aiken without understanding his ground fully, 
wrote down, and carried to him in his seat, a series of in- 
terrogatories which, with their answers, we here subjoin : 

" 1st. Are you hostile to the American party ; and have 
you ever pronounced, or do you now believe, that party 
enemies to civil and religious liberty? 

" Answer to 1st. To the first I answer I never have. 

"2d. Are you in favor of the union of the States so long 
as it can be continued without such violation of the spirit 
of the Constitution as would justify revolution ? 

" Answer 2d. I am in favor of the continuance of this 
Union as long as the rights of all the States are preserved. 

" 3d. Do you belong to the Democratic organization, and 
do you fully indorse the course and policy of the present 
Administration, so far as to favor the election of the present 
incumbent to office again ? 

" Answer 3d. I do not, strictly speaking, belong to the 
Democratic party organization. I approve what I believe 
right, and will oppose what I think wrong, in that as in all 
other parties. 

"4th. Would you object to such a modification of the 
naturalization laws as would require citizens of other coun- 
tries to remain here before they become citizens of this 
country for a decidedly longer term than at present? 

"Answer 4th. I would not object, but would favor a 
material extension of the naturalization laws. 

"These answers were known to every member of the 
American party in the House. Mr. Aiken said he would 
sign the paper as soon as the election was over, but not 
then. His reason for not signing them then is sufficiently 
obvious. He did not wish to appear to do it, merely through 
anxiety to obtain the office." 

The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Aik- 
en,] it will be observed, refused to answer what 
I desired to know, and what I had a right to call 
for, and refused it, too, after having voted for the 
following resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee, [Mr. Zollicoffer;] which passed 
by a vote of 155 to 38: 

" Resotccd, That in conformity with the principles of a 
great pqpular Government, sueh as that of'the United States, 
it is the duty of all candidates for political position frankly 
and fully to state their opinions upon important political 
questions involved in their election, and especially when 
they are interrogated by the body of electors, whose votes 
they are seeking." 

His declining to answer satisfied me of his po- 
sition. I consequently determined to withhold 
my vote. 

Now, I submit that the remarks of the gentle- 
man from Kentucky, every word of which was 
justified by these pledges, could not well have 
been misunderstood, especially after the gentle- 
man from South Carolina declined to answer my 
questions. Thus was the resolution passed by 
the Democratic caucus, trampled by them in the 
dust, and the position there taken shamefully 
deserted. And now they come ami denounce me ! 
They assail my Democratic standing! Let them 



remember, that those who live in glass houses 
should not throw stones ! 

Sir, I am denounced because I voted to send a 
committee of investigation to Kansas"; because I 
voted to admit Kansas as a free State, under a 
constitution formed by a majority of her citizens; 
and because I voted to exclude General Whit- 
field as Delegate, and to admit Governor Reeder. 
These are political sins in the estimation of the 
gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from 
Alabama. I would have no difficulty in defend- 
ing my votes before the country. I need no jus- 
tification. I will, however, remark that there is 
a distinction between principles and measures. A 
man may be a good Democrat, and yet oppose a 
measure of the Democratic party when he believes 
that measure to be wrong; but he cannot be a 
good Democrat without sustaining the principles 
of the Democratic party. 

Now, I ask what principle of the Democratic 
party did I violate by any of my votes? None 
at all. I acted strictly in accordance with the 
principles of Democracy in sustaining the ap- 
pointment of a committee to investigate the causes 
of the difficulties in Kansas, and to inquire into 
the alleged election frauds there. Do you call 
it Democratic to encourage the invasion of a 
Territory? — to control the ballot-box by armed 
and brutal violence? — to strangle the press? — 
to hunt men down like wild beasts for mere 
expression of opinion? — to stifle the voice of a 
free people, and to force upon them laws which 
they had no part in framing? Do you call it 
Democratic to elevate fraud, and to trample upon 
bleeding virtue ? Is that your Democracy ■ It is 
not mine. Such Democracy may do for the 
miasmatic atmosphere of the districts represented 
by these gentlemen, but it will never do tor the 
pure, healthful, Democratic mountain air of my 
cherished State. We have been taught that 
Democracy consists in an equality of rights, 
resistance to wrongs, protection against oppres- 
sions, and justice to nil. 

I regret, sir, that I have been forced into a mere 
personal controversy: having been assailed, I 
could not help defending myself. That being 
done, I now take leave of this subject, apologizing 
to the House for even necessary personal refer- 
ence, and proceed to another train of remarks. 

I have said our greatest danger, perhaps, is 
from the spread of the principles >>t' the American 
party. I say so, because they appeal to the baser 
passions of our nature. Having no one feature 
intrinsically excellent, yet, by ad captandvm 
phrases, they are well calculated t" lead astray 
many who would scorn them ifpr sented stripped 
of the veil with which their huh ousness is con- 
cealed. 

The doctrines of this party are imt of recent 
origin or native growth. Long ago were they 
rebuked by the voice of Omnipotence: " Thou 

shalt neither vex a stranger : oppress him; for 

ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." But not- 
withstanding they have ever gone hand m hand 
with pre j ml iee and illiberal feeling. During the lone 
night of the middle ages— when the human mind 
was bound with the shackli a of superstition and 
her twin sister, vice — when the tondencj ofi 

thing was to separate and is. date individuals. 
Communities, and nations, w ith particular plans, 
customs, objects, and pursuits — when 



a 



" Lands intersected by a narrow frith 
Abhorred each other — mountains interposed 
Made enemies of nations, who had else 
Like kindred drops been mingled into one," 

some palliation might have been found for such 
contracted virus. But now there can be neither 
justification, nor excuse, nor palliation. 

Our Revolution more immediately- developed 
those great ideas which dimly burned in the 
bosom of Christendom, and occasionally labored 
to realize themselves in the various enterprises of 
the day. Those ideas, which are attached to the 
divinest sentiments of the soul, arc expressive of 
its aspirations, and of its responses to the great 
needs of humanity. Those ideas, so developed, 
sped calmly and silently on their way, extending 
their influence to every class and condition of 
society, dissipated the prejudices of men, and 
shed a divine luster on the darkness of the world. 
Under their influence, the spirit of persecution 
gave place to the spirit of love. The angry floods 
of religious strife and discord abated, and left 
another and more peaceful spirit at work in the 
hearts of men. They revealed fully to the gaze 
of the world the doctrine of human brotherhood, 
and pointed man to an excellence which glim- 
mered in the immeasurable heights above him. 

But, sir, in the year of our Lord 1S54 this is all 
reversed. Prejudice and bigotry bring forth a party 
which in the land of Washington would revive 
old abuses, reinstate false theories, ancient dog- 
mas, and miserable fallacies; a party that would 
destroy just and reasonable laws, established 
upon correct principles; a party that would ob- 
scure the brightest gem in the coronet of Amer- 
ican liberty, break up the fountains of the great 
deep, and let loose the turbulent waters of passion; 
and this under the pretense of "passionate at- 
tachment to our country, its history, and insti- 
tutions" — under pretense of "imitation of the 
practice of the purer days of the Republic" — un- 
der pretense of " veneration for the heroism that 
precipitated our Revolution, and of emulation of 
the virtue, wisdom, and patriotism that framed 
our Constitution, and first successfully applied 
its provisions" — under the hypocritical pretense 
of reverence for " Christianity," and the " Holy 
Bible." Never, sir, was the " gutttt non vi sed 
scepe cadendo" more completely verified. This 
party calls itself" American." Do its principles 
correspond with its professions? On the contrary, 
are they not " blackened to the very blackest," 
and "gangrened to the very core?" 

Our fathers concluded the Constitution with 
that memorable clause: " No religious test shall 
ever be required as a qualification to any office or 
public trust under the United States;" a clause 
worthy of them and the country they represented. 
The) r declared: "Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion, or pro- 
hibiting the free exercise thereof." 

The essence of a crime consists not in the vio- 
lation of the letter of the law, but of its spirit. I 
know this party disavow any attempt to strike 
these clauses out of the Constitution; but that is 
probably because they have not the power to do 
it. I know they disavow any intention to make 
a religious test a qualification for office; for, if 
that were asserted, thousands of honest liberal 
men who have joined them would stand horror- 



stricken at the loathsomeness of that party, and 
turn their backs upon it with ineffable disgust. 
Yet, sir, this American party does glaringly vio- 
late the spirit of, and strike a deathblow at, these 
constitutional provisions. One leading purpose 
is, as we learn from the Philadelphia platform, 
to exclude from " advancement " " to all political 
stations" every person except " those only who 
do not hold civil allegiance, directly or indirectly, 
to any foreign Power." Do not Catholics deny 
holding such allegiance — universally deny it ? 
But the American party say they do " hold civil 
allegiance to a foreign Power. " They assume as 
fact what is most distinctly denied; and upon that 
assumption predicate their political action to ex- 
clude all Catholics from any participation in the 
Government, native as well as foreign-born, be- 
cause they are Catholics. This is the reason, and 
the only one. They are rejected as unworthy on 
account of their religious faith. They deny hold- 
ing civil allegiance to any foreign Power; and this 
party which would exclude them do not pretend 
to prove they do hold it, and no intelligent one 
among them believes it. What is this but a species 
of persecution ? What but contrary to the spirit 
of the Constitution? And yet they tell us they 
favor the largest religious liberty. It may be 
they do, but, if so, most assuredly it is confined 
to those of their own party and belief. If they 
do, why this religious political warfare ? Why 
politically oppose, malign, and villify a particular 
sect ? Why raise the cry that religion and liberty 
are in danger — that a deep plot is laid to destroy 
the one and subvert the other? Why these de- 
liberate, continued, and, may I not say, mali- 
cious attempts to excite prejudices throughout our 
land ? 

Sir, it has been the uniform policy of our coun- 
try to encourage immigration. Heretofore we 
have thrown wide open our doors to the men of 
every country and every clime. We have invited 
them to come and make this their home. No 
country owes more to foreigners than our own, 
and none has more need of them now. Yet this 
party, which would " imitate the practice of the 
purer days of the Republic" — I suppose they 
mean by that the days of the alien and sedition 
laws — this party visit upon a well-ordered, intel- 
ligent, honest, industrious people, bitter invec- 
tives, unfounded reproaches, and malignant asper- 
sions. Indiscriminate abuse is heaped upon all 
of foreign birth, particularly on the Germans and 
Irish, on whose devoted heads are incessantly 
"poured out the vials of wrath." Forgetful of 
the services the foreigner has rendered the coun- 
try " in the fiery hour of trial," Americanism 
would exclude him from the enjoyment of free 
institutions, or make his home here too intoler- 
able to be borne. 

There is scarcely any country in Christendom 
that does not gladly avail itself of the proffered 
talents of the foreigner who makes his permanent 
domieil there. England placed West, an Amer- 
ican, at the head of the Royal Academy. France 
intrusted her armies to a Berwick, to a Saxe, and 
her financial concerns were presided over by a 
Swiss banker. Scotch heroes have commanded 
Russian fleets; and I believe the defenses at Sebas- 
topol were conducted by an American engineer. 
While' all other nations, profiting by our exam- 
ple, are growing more liberal, it is gravely pro- 



posed to introduce here the narrow, illiberal sys- 
tems of China and Japan. 

In the "purer days of the Republic," our 
country fought for foreigners; the war of 1812 
was in defense of their rights. Then the Gov- 
ernment held the rights of foreign-born citizens 
to be as sacred as those of the native-born; their 
interest, our interest; their cause, our cause. 
Yet there was a party then which cursed Pres- 
ident Madison ten thousand times over for his 
" folly and wickedness" in involving this country 
in war for the purpose of securing a few seamen, 
who were said to be vagabond English, Irish, and 
Scotch, the scum of the earth, from the claims 
of their lawful prince. And the Massachusetts 
Legislature declared, " The real cause of the war 
must be traced to the influence of worthless for- 
eigners"— that is, naturalized citizens, asking 
protection against their oppressors. The cry of 
foreign influence was then raised by the Federal 
party. The same cry is now raised by the 
American party. 

I will go, sir, as far as any man in resisting 
foreign interference in the affairs of our country — 
that interference which would foment dissensions, 
excite animosities, and divide citizens of a com- 
mon country — which would fan the flame of sec- 
tional discord , and which has long sought to break 
into fragments the Union of the States; this is 
the foreign influence " the Fatherof his Country" 
warned us — beivare! 

In every age and nation there have been tur- 
bulent, ambitious, and unscrupulous men, who, 
having a design themselves upon the people, 
artfully address their passions and prejudices 
until their reason becomes clouded, when they 
are led to play 

" such fantastic tricks before high Heaven, 

As make the angels weep." 

Who does not know what was the magical 
effect in Great Britain of the cry: "The Church 
is in danger!" by which the severities and re- 
strictions under which the Dissenters groaned for 
one hundred and fifty years were firmly riveted 
on them? Who is ignorant of the effects of the 
cry of " French influence" in our own land— of 
the unpatriotic and tumultuous proceedings it 
gave rise to — of the bitter denunciation of.Jeffer- 
son, and which caused even honorable members 
of this House to threaten Mr. Madison with exile 
to Elba, or the alternative of a halter around his 
neck? Who has not heard, at a later da)-, the 
senseless clamor raised by the American party — 
"Foreign influence!" — "Catholics!"— "ignorant 
foreigners !" — "Americans rule America !" &c? 
and who has not looked with disgust upon the 
consequences — the disgraceful riots in Louisville, 
Covington, Cincinnati, St. Louis, New Orleans, 
and other cities of the Union, where Christians 
were slaughtered by Christians — where the blood 
of man was thrown by his brother in the face of 
Heaven? The angel of justice has gone forth, and 
the leaders and instigators of such enormities will 
meet with merited retribution. 

Sir, this American party desire an "essential 
modification of the naturalization laws." The 
object is to prevent, fora long period of time, the 
foreign-born citizen from exercising the right of 
suffrage. This is to be done indirectly. They 
well know naturalization confers no right to vote. 
Bat the State laws give this right to all ci/iieitsof 



the United States possessing the requisite quali- 
fications. By extending these laws — by prevent- 
ing the citizenship of foreigners, the State laws 
could not take effect, and of course the foreign- 
born would be deprived of any representation. 
They also resolve to bring about a repeal of the 
laws in those States allowing foreigners not nat- 
uralized the right to vote. W hat reasons do they 
give us for these proposed changes ? They tell 
us that a residence of five years is too short to 
enable the foreigner to understand the genius of 
our Government— to become sufficiently indoctri- 
nated with the republican principles of our Con- 
stitution; that his old prejudices yet hang about 
him; that he cannot divest himself so soon of 
the vivid memories of his childhood, home, and 
fatherland; that as native-born citizens must 
remain here twenty-one years before voting, so 
should the alien; that the present laws are abused 
in foreigners coming here fraudulently procuring 
naturalization upon one year's residence; and to 
cap the climax it is said, they are ignorant, and 
universally vote the Democratic ticket. 

A brief answer only is required to these various 
positions. If the foreigner does not " under- 
stand the genius of our Government," or^ " the 
republican principles of our Constitution," how 
comes it he uniformly " votes the Democratic 
ticket?" If it be true they are all Democrats, 
as they are charged, that is the most conclusive 
argument which could be furnished that they do 
"understand the genius of our Government," 
and are deeply indoctrinated with " republican 
principles." Would his prejudices be likely to 
grow less by taxation without representation? 
Would the sense of degradation, to which you 
would thus subject him, weaken the memory of 
his childhood's home, or dim the recollections of 
his fatherland ? If the naturalization laws are 
evaded, how will their extension remedy that? 
Would not there then be a much stronger induce- 
ment co use unworthy means to evade them than 
now? Would an extension afford any additional 
security? Surely not. "Our children have to 
remain here till the aire of twenty-one before they 
are allowed to vote." So do foreign-born chil- 
dren. But for the sake of common sense it were 
to be hoped this "great" American party will not 
longer draw an argument from a comparison be- 
tween the weakness of infancy and the maturity 
of manhood. 

Is it true that our foreign-born population 
are ignorant and degradi d : It is not, sir. The 
great body of them an- neither the one nor the 
other. From foreign lands are some of ourableet 
ministers, most profound scholars, noblest states- 
men, and distinguished generals. Among the 
agricultural population will be found, in t! i 
foreigners, as much industry, intelligence, hon- 
esty, and, indeed, every virtue which adoms man. 
as in a corn spending number of native-born. 1 
inventors, manufacturers, ami artisans, thy have 
rendered our country important Bervices. As 
citizens they are, with fewi xceptions, peaceable, 
law -abiding.and patriotic. And if those gentle- 
men, v. ho talk so much about ignorant fori 

would only extend their vision bey I the city 

limits of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, 



if they 

iev will 



have not abundanl reasonat home— there they 
find more than sufficient reason to induceachange 

of opinion. Id their native land they hare been 



8 



crushed by wasteful, destroying, despotic Gov- 
ernments — curbed, constrained, and controlled in 
their industry by monopolies and restrictions and 
grinding taxes. Their oppressions and depriva- 
tions have taught them the value of liberty, and 
with eager eyes (hey look to " the asylum of the 
oppressed," and greet this land as the mother of 
freedom. 

Under the wise and liberal policy of our ances- 
tors, look at the stupendous increase of our 
country ! With what ineffable delight must not 
the lover of his species contemplate her glorious 
scenes of expanding population, civilization, 
and happiness: agriculture, arts, manufactures, 
commerce, and science, spreading their holy em- 
pire, where before only the savage reigned ! 
Many, many of those who have largely contrib- 
uted to this magnificent result are foreigners. 
With the American party this is a reproach. It 
attaches disgrace to them on account of the place 
of their birth. It would deprive them of their 
rights as citizens under the miserable pretext that 
they are incapable of enjoying them — that they 
are dangerous ! Language is too meager to ex- 
press the deep degradation of such principles. 
Aptly may this party apply to itself the words 
of Lucifer: 

'• I am the imperfection of the whole, 
The pitch profoundest of the fallible, 
Myself the all of evil that exists, 
The ocean heapi:d into a single surge." 

I shall not now refer, sir, in contradiction of the 
bald assertions of the " Americans," to the illus- 
trious names of Steuben, De Kalb, Kosciusko, 
Pulaski, Morris, La Fayette, and other names, 
which shed luster upon almost every page of 
early American history, and whose memories 
will be held in grateful remembrance till " the 
last syllable of recorded time." 

But I will call attention to humbler, yet no less 
noblemen. Look over to the Brandy wine! On 
its banks may be seen a band of Irishmen. They 
are enrolled against the country of their birth, in 
the ranks oftiie country of their adoption. They 
form the greater part of the celebrated Pennsyl- 
vania line. Their sunburnt visages, all scarred, 
attest how well they have acquitted themselves in 
the field. Their blood has been freely given for 
our country. Many of their comrades have 
sealed their attachment with their lives. They 
are the residue. They march along with determ- 
ined, but sorrowful countenances. Their tat- 
tered garments serve not to protect their bodies; 
their shoeless feet mark with blood their tracks 
on the snow. Half famished they can scarcely 
drag their weary limbs along. Their noble leader, 
as he views that noble but distressed band, with 
heaving heart wipes the half fallen tear from his 
manly cheek. Look again. They are now at 
Morristown. Long have they entreated for 
assistance, but none comes; they have begged, 
implored, for the merest necessities of life: all, 
all in vain. The car of those for whom they 
fight is turned away. Their appeals to their 
gratitude, generosity, justice, are unavailing. 
But cold neglect istheirs. Is it for this they have 
suffered? Is it for this so many of their compan- 
ions have been left up'on the battle-field? All 
hope of relii f is gone. The most intense suffer- 
ings are theirs. They become, and justly so, 
indignant at the wrongs they have borne. They 



now demand the redress for which they have so 
long supplicated. They mutiny. The morning 
of the 1st of January, 1781, that line of thirteen 
hundred men march out of their encampment. 
The gallant Wayne, their commanding officer, 
hastens to the front, presents his pistol as if about 
to fire. There stand those brave and determined 
men. They hold their bayonets to his breast. 
"We love and respect you, but if you fire, you 
are a dead man. We are not going over to the 
enemy. We are determined in obtaining jus- 
tice.' They march to Princeton, whence the 
intelligence is quickly taken to the British camp. 
Hark! what shouts fall upon our ears? It is 
the rejoicing, by that host, that the time was 
come to end the "rebellion" — to crush out the 
half-formed embryo of the Republic. Confiden- 
tial messengers are dispatched by Sir Henry 
Clinton to the suffering Hibernians. British 
protection is offered, pardon for all past offenses, 
without expecting military service from them. 
They are told of the plentiful table of their royal 
master, abundant supplies of provisions, cloth- 
ing in profusion, pay, and bounties. Upon these 
poor, neglected warriors the tempter has no 
power. They choose to endure poverty, naked- 
ness, suffering, and ingratitude. They seize the 
messengers, trample upon their shining ore, and 
send them back to the tent of General Wayne, 
to pay the forfeit of their lives. There was no 
.Arnold among them! The council of Pennsylvania 
sent their president, Reed, and General Potter, to 
confer with the mutineers. They met them at 
Princeton. President Reed offered them a purse 
of one hundred guineas as a reward for their 
fidelity. They refused it with these noble words, 
"We have only done our duty." Are not these 
facts a sufficient answer to the charges of igno- 
rance, degradation, and danger to our country, 
of our foreign population, asserted and reiterated 
by American orators throughout the land ? 

Sir, ithas been asked me, how, with such views, 
I can sustain the Democratic party and support 
Mr. Buchanan ? I will tell you, sir. No princi- 
ple of that party contravenes a single doctrine I 
have advanced, or vote I have given. Not one. 
As man in his individual capacity is imperfect, 
so is he in an associated one. And though I be- 
lieve my party to have occasionally erred on 
measures — on mere questions of expediency, yet, 
in my opinion, that is not sufficient reason to 
overturn principles which must endure as longas 
justice and the love of liberty shall find a place in 
the human heart. 

I shall, as I have ever done, supportMr. Buch- 
anan, because I believe him to be a Democrat " in 
whom there is no guile.' 1 I support him, because in 
his own person he represents the principles of the 
partv — because he is perhaps the greatest of our 
living statesmen — prudent, judicious, and safe — 
because he stands opposed to that new light, from 
which every man ought to fly as he would from 
a perilous promontory, or from the threatening 
Charybdis,or fromthe mythic Syrens — that light 
which directs man from the truth, which leads 
him from liberty, which b sdges his way with 
snares, pitfalls, and abysses: Mr. Buchanan is the 
only man, as I believe, who is now able to extri- 
cate the country from the imminent dangers which 
surround it, and dispel the threatening clouds 
which overhang the Republic. 



Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 



146 



•» o. 



<\ 












V ^ 






..,.. ^ »■ ^ 









c°\« 






^ft" 






o 1^ 







C°%. 



,o° \>; 






^> 



. » * A 



^% ° 



-'v 









7^ ^ 



% 



4 



•vV 



^ 
•< 



«? 



i* * 



- j» 










o • >. ■ A 






%* .vat* *„ £ *\ 





**v 






^ v ,^>x > o v^l*.°o.. y,-^t.% 




> 



.<* « 






^<K ". 











° . ^>. v 














v otfik <$ 







v0v\ 



i0v\ 



> .^..Vv *,-> " v<^. V'"V ........ S 





*V 



^V 





















V 



*o 












r ^ 









^%^ 






^°. 




^o " ■ V ..... v^^o* 6 ..... \ " 









WERT 
BOOKSIND^C 

Cri^Mlle Pa 
Jsn f ft 1989 









; ** y *^ -.BBS'; ^ M ^ 






